tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post6864100533756262340..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Jack On Steynbigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-8000014188689739152008-05-05T11:41:00.000-04:002008-05-05T11:41:00.000-04:00Do something useful with your precious freedom of ...<I>Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression instead of wasting smarter people's time.</I><BR/><BR/>yes, you've made it abundantly clear how smart you are by:<BR/><BR/>making stuff up as you go along (complainants are asking Macleans to "voluntarily" publish, HRCs are "arbitrative", HRCs dont issue injunctions, all proven to be complete fabrications, yet you carry on making more stuff up"<BR/><BR/>responding to the destruction of your position/statements by insults (that's a big winner right there and a sure sign of intellectual acumen - Dion should run on that "Conservatives are big fat stupid meanies")<BR/><BR/>failing to construct an actual argument throughout. never has there been anything resembling the application of logic to facts. to me, your failure to actual make an argument, shows just how brilliant you really are, you are not constrained by the conventions of logic, facts, or common sense - congratulations.<BR/><BR/>lastly, I am not wasting your time, I am wasting mine. That you choose to read my comments and respond is your choice alone.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-20278388752436359062008-05-04T12:30:00.000-04:002008-05-04T12:30:00.000-04:00Do something useful with your precious freedom of ...Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression instead of wasting <I>smarter</I> people's time.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-63726997913272610512008-05-04T06:56:00.000-04:002008-05-04T06:56:00.000-04:00I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actual...<I>I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with important instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.</I><BR/><BR/>I didnt address this because this is nonsense to a degree that your sentences dont make sense, and you dont actually express a coherent thought. It's a bizarre mixture of paranoia and cliché.<BR/><BR/><I>Do something useful with your precious freedom of expression in other words, instead of wasting other people's time.</I><BR/><BR/>what the hell do you care if Im wasting my own time and if its useful. try to make an ARGUMENT, as in a combination of fact and logic which point to a conclusion which supports your position. In over 50 comments, you havent done it once.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-73098951629941119952008-05-04T03:04:00.000-04:002008-05-04T03:04:00.000-04:00You didn't address this:I guess if the speechies e...You didn't address this:<BR/><BR/><I>I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with important instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.</I><BR/><BR/>I've said before, but I guess I should be plainer about it, because I've discussed this to death; I'm completely indifferent to you speechies and your petty little concerns for racists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and all the other bigots and neo-nazis when there are bigger issues that none of you cares to address.<BR/><BR/>Go and donate 1000.00 to Ezra Levant. Then go write a book or an article on the perils of human rights commissions. Then do something else for free expression and Canadian democracy and the protection of human rights.<BR/><BR/>Do something <I>useful</I> with your precious freedom of expression in other words, instead of wasting other people's time.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-81716965195633681992008-05-03T18:18:00.000-04:002008-05-03T18:18:00.000-04:00I guess speechies will never admit that censorship...<I>I guess speechies will never admit that censorship occurs before something is expressed. If something ends up being expressed, there is no censorship. What happens, afterwards, if anything at all, are simply reactions and/or consequences. These are very important conceptual distinctions.</I><BR/><BR/>that's exactly what the HRC complaints will do - the next person who like Steyn might want to quote an incendiary imam will think about it twice, as he knows he's going to be at the mercy of the CIC and its state enforcers.<BR/><BR/><I>It's wrong as well, but not as dishonest.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay so now you disagree with PEN. At least its consistent with your other posts.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>but rejects free speech absolutism in favour of mediation</I><BR/><BR/>HRCs are not involved in mediations, they might encourage it between the parties, but ultimately its the defendant against the commission, in an adversarial hearing before a tribunal. more stuff made from thin air?<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I personally am convinced that the cabal of propagandists involved in this mess were trying to provoke a civil emergency in Canada in early 2006 and they're simply not going to be given the chance to do that. Not in my country.</I><BR/><BR/>yeah thanks for stopping that civil emergency in early 2006, that was a close call, but ti-guy was there to save the day!!!Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-55358372252387670772008-05-03T15:20:00.000-04:002008-05-03T15:20:00.000-04:00Back for more eh?no no no, its a logical pretzel t...Back for more eh?<BR/><BR/><I>no no no, its a logical pretzel to pretend that PENs position is an opposition to HRC's attempts at suppressing speech rather than just suppressing speech. the fact that the word attempts is there doesnt change anything.</I><BR/><BR/>That wasn't central to my point refuting (successfully) your argument that I agree with PEN's position on HRC's. I simply mentioned it because PEN seems to be the first entity I've come across that better articulates what the speechies have been dishonestly propagandising about. This <I>appears</I> as attempts to censor. It's wrong as well, but not as dishonest.<BR/><BR/>I guess speechies will never admit that censorship occurs <I>before</I> something is expressed. If something ends up being expressed, there is no censorship. What happens, afterwards, if anything at all, are simply reactions and/or consequences. These are very important conceptual distinctions.<BR/><BR/>I guess if the speechies ever admitted they actually understood censorship, they'd be obliged to deal with <I>important</I> instances of it, such as media and corporate censorship, censorship conducted by Canadian border agents, government censorship of public information (did you notice Harper suspended CAIRS last week?) and the censorship of dishonest authoritarians like Ezra Levant, who moderates the comments on his blog ever so judiciously and sues anyone who accuses him of being a racist.<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry to give you lessons in logic like that, but Im actually having fun so dont feel bad.</I><BR/><BR/>I find it hilarious that any of you persist in thinking you're going to trap people like me, who opposes censorship vehemently and supports directing resources (such as the PAP) to encourage people to express themselves meaningfully, but rejects free speech absolutism in favour of mediation, into some humiliating logical fallacy that'll cause me to change my mind. I've studied the dynamics of propaganda that worked for both the Jewish and Rwandan genocides for years and the propaganda that duped the Americans into a disastrous invasion (another crime against humanity) and you're just never, ever going to convince me to doubt what I know to be true.<BR/><BR/>I personally am convinced that the cabal of propagandists involved in this mess were trying to provoke a civil emergency in Canada in early 2006 and they're simply not going to be given the chance to do that. Not in my country.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-76599284949896147972008-05-03T09:27:00.000-04:002008-05-03T09:27:00.000-04:00It's not a logic pretzel. You just happen to belie...<I><BR/>It's not a logic pretzel. You just happen to believe "HRC's" and "freedom of expression" are the same thing. I can't help you with that.</I><BR/><BR/>no no no, its a logical pretzel to pretend that PENs position is an opposition to HRC's <B>attempts</B> at suppressing speech rather than just suppressing speech. the fact that the word attempts is there doesnt change anything.<BR/><BR/>also, any position on free speech in canada necessarily includes a position on HRCs. if you share PENs position on free speech except for HRCs, you should have said so. instead, you are twisting yourself into a pretzel.<BR/><BR/>foreign policy, and Iraq, are two separate things. yet if you share Bush's position on foreign policy, without qualifications, that necessarily includes his position on Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to give you lessons in logic like that, but Im actually having fun so dont feel bad.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-59393873503337501172008-05-02T20:30:00.000-04:002008-05-02T20:30:00.000-04:00as I said you should clear the record to clarify y...<I>as I said you should clear the record to clarify your statement rather than twist yourself into a logical pretzel like you just did.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not a logic pretzel. You just happen to believe "HRC's" and "freedom of expression" are the same thing. I can't help you with that.<BR/><BR/>And if you wanted me to clarify something, you should have thought about that before accusing me of being...well, what was is exactly...inconsistency? Incoherence? I don't know. I can never understand anything you speechies are saying.<BR/><BR/><I>the duct tape is symbolic</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know. Everything is <I>symbolic</I> with the speechies. I guess when you have nothing to say but can't shut up, one has to find grandeur somewhere. It's easy when it's all <I>symbolic.</I><BR/><BR/>It's too bad their imaginations (with the exception of Ezra "Victim of State Inquisition and Torture!" Levant), are so limited; instead of duct tape, why can't it be ball gags? Laryngectomies? <I>Tongue extractions?!!</I>Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-36955460618037299242008-05-02T19:50:00.000-04:002008-05-02T19:50:00.000-04:00oh my god, how could I have been so foolish, they ...oh my god, how could I have been so foolish, they are only <B>attempting</B> to suppress freedom of speech. I take back what I said earlier, you are the king of nuances.<BR/><BR/>no in all seriousness ti-guy, as I said you should clear the record to clarify your statement rather than twist yourself into a logical pretzel like you just did. dont get me wrong, this is entertaining stuff - but like you said, it would be nice if we could move on.<BR/><BR/>also for the record, human rights commission can and have issued injunctions against people - i'll even use the google for you and show you if you ask nicely. injunctions by HRCs, like court orders or orders from any other administrative tribunal have force of law. do you think you can just ignore these things and get away with it?<BR/><BR/>ignoring such an order from an HRC is the same as contempt of court and could ultimately lead to jail. dont get me wrong, jail sentences would not be the first enforcement tool used but if you ignore a judge's order enough times, you're ending up in a slammer.<BR/><BR/>so the following:<BR/><BR/><I>In other words, they can't take people's computers away from them, or shut down presses, or put duct tape over people's mouths, or throw them in jail, or...</I><BR/><BR/>is patently false in many respects. the duct tape is symbolic, but the jail most definitely is not.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-55663087917913443062008-05-02T19:21:00.000-04:002008-05-02T19:21:00.000-04:00That position includes an opposition to the HRC's ...<I>That position includes an opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of speech.</I><BR/><BR/>Funny, because I don't find that articulated by PEN Canada. What I <A HREF="http://www.pencanada.ca/media/feb42008-statement.pdf" REL="nofollow">find</A> is: "PEN Canada calls on the federal and provincial governments<BR/>to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used <B>to attempt </B> to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."<BR/><BR/>An attempt of restrict freedom of expression is not the same thing as actual <I>suppression</I> of freedom of expression, which the HRC's, cannot do. All they can do is impose penalities and specify consequences. In other words, they can't take people's computers away from them, or shut down presses, or put duct tape over people's mouths, or throw them in jail, or...<BR/><BR/>In other words, your argument has failed. The two statements are not the same; you just tried to <I>insist</I> they were by inserting information into one of them that is quite plainly not there; the assumption that when I said I supported PEN's position on freedom of expression, I was including its position on HRC's. Human Rights Commissions and freedom of expression are two distinct things.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure PEN has all kinds of other positions as well; that doesn't necessarily mean I'm addressing them when I state that I support PEN's position on freedom of expression.<BR/><BR/>Now please apologise for causing this unfortunate <I>contretemps</I>, and we will move on.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-59816960995772521002008-05-02T18:40:00.000-04:002008-05-02T18:40:00.000-04:00Yes.I will now provide an argument as to why this ...Yes.<BR/><BR/>I will now provide an argument as to why this is the case, without insulting you (watch and learn).<BR/><BR/><I>I share PEN's position on freedom of expression</I><BR/><BR/>Ok great you share PEN's position. That position includes an opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of speech. You did not qualify your statement that you shared PEN's position only to a certain point, or that you disagreed on some points but not on others. Your statement was a complete, unqualified endorsement of PEN's position on freedom of expression, which includes said opposition to HRC's "excesses".<BR/><BR/>To take an example, if someone says they share George Bush's position on Iraq, you would correctly understand that this person is in favor of the war on Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Hey, if you didnt mean it, just go ahead and correct the record. No need to throw accusations of lying around. Seriously, you make fun (rightly so) of right-wingers who cant make an argument and just throw insults around. And then you turn around and do the exact same thing.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-19082701627513320782008-05-02T17:09:00.000-04:002008-05-02T17:09:00.000-04:00Yes or no. Does this..."I share PEN's position on ...Yes or no. Does this...<BR/><BR/>"I share PEN's position on freedom of expression;"<BR/><BR/>...mean the same thing as this...<BR/><BR/>"I support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression."Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-50894579069528098832008-05-02T17:05:00.000-04:002008-05-02T17:05:00.000-04:00your posts:I share PEN's position on freedom of ex...your posts:<BR/><I>I share PEN's position on freedom of expression;</I><BR/><BR/><I>That's not what I said, is it? Why are you lying?</I><BR/><BR/>contradictory posts, check.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Oh, God, stop crying. Aren't Teletubbies on now, or something?</I><BR/><BR/>unwarranted insults, check.<BR/><BR/>lack of argument, check.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-20829632715604044032008-05-02T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-02T16:42:00.000-04:00that makes a lot of sense. you support PEN's state...<I>that makes a lot of sense. you support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression</I><BR/><BR/>That's not what I said, is it? Why are you lying?<BR/><BR/>In the end, the issue is complex. PEN also opposes Bill C-10, which a lot of the speechies <I>support.</I><BR/><BR/>PEN is being coherent, at least.<BR/><BR/><I>Let's recap: you make up stuff as you go along, you cant formulate an argument, when confronted with your faulty logic you react by throwing insults indiscriminately.<BR/>And you project all these on your ideological opponents. I feel sorry for you.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, God, stop crying. Aren't <I>Teletubbies</I> on now, or something?Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-75991979410669448202008-05-02T16:24:00.000-04:002008-05-02T16:24:00.000-04:00I share PEN's position on freedom of expression; I...<I>I share PEN's position on freedom of expression; I also support the HRC's.</I><BR/><BR/>that makes a lot of sense. you support PEN's stated opposition to the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression as well as the HRC's suppression of freedom of expression.<BR/><BR/><I>No, that's not right. Correct and re-submit.</I><BR/><BR/>That's your post of 7:16PM<BR/><BR/><I>That's why I won't/can't answer your question before you familiarise yourself with the law. You will in fact learn that your question is moot.<BR/><BR/>HRC's are arbitrative mechanisms, not directives.</I><BR/><BR/>That was shown to be completely false, a complete fabrication.<BR/><BR/>Let's recap: you make up stuff as you go along, you cant formulate an argument, when confronted with your faulty logic you react by throwing insults indiscriminately.<BR/>And you project all these on your ideological opponents. I feel sorry for you.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-14088654233597942152008-05-02T15:47:00.000-04:002008-05-02T15:47:00.000-04:00and now you readily admit that you suggested I kne...<I>and now you readily admit that you suggested I knew nothing based on "no evidence to the contrary".</I><BR/><BR/>Learn how to use quotation marks. I never said that.<BR/><BR/><I>Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that I am NOT a drug dealer, or a murderer.</I><BR/><BR/>Right. And?<BR/><BR/><I>I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing,</I><BR/><BR/>No, that's not right. Correct and re-submit.<BR/><BR/><I>I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing, and then I showed my statement to be correct. Im suggesting that you should not go around calling people ignorant of certain things without evidence that they are in fact ignorant, rather than lack of evidence that they are not ignorant. In other words, take 2 seconds to google before throwing insults left and right.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, get stuffed, you tedious little scold. I don't even know if any of that is true, because I'm hardly paying attention. Like I said, I'm completely indifferent to issue of the right to free expression of stupid people who never say anything worth listening to. And since no one is in fact shutting y'all up, I don't know what the crisis is all about.<BR/><BR/><I>The left, as far as I can tell from G&M editorials, PEN Canada, and others who have come out in favor of free speech, do not share your position on this.</I><BR/><BR/>I share PEN's position on freedom of expression; I also support the HRC's. When someone issues a fatwa against the Robber Baron's Catamite, I expect I will be suitably...er...<I>concerned</I>, as he has been about all the other people living under the yoke of poor human rights protection.<BR/><BR/>I'm already working on the frown I'll use when I hear that Steyn's head is resting on pike somewhere.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-40534749531446827202008-05-02T15:07:00.000-04:002008-05-02T15:07:00.000-04:00Are you suggesting I should have known you knew an...<I>Are you suggesting I should have known you knew anything about the law at the time there was no evidence at hand to indicate that you did? And are you further suggesting that because you subsequently went out and googled up something that that somehow changes the conditions under which I made my original assumption?</I><BR/><BR/>ah wow ti-guy, Im having fun here, I hope you are too. You accuse others left and right of intellectual dishonesty and now you readily admit that you suggested I knew nothing based on "no evidence to the contrary". Similarly, you have no evidence to suggest that I am NOT a drug dealer, or a murderer.<BR/><BR/>I made a statement about the law which was correct, you asserted it was false and I knew nothing, and then I showed my statement to be correct. Im suggesting that you should not go around calling people ignorant of certain things without evidence that they are in fact ignorant, rather than lack of evidence that they are not ignorant. In other words, take 2 seconds to google before throwing insults left and right.<BR/><BR/>And I dont mean to insult you with "far-left". The left, as far as I can tell from G&M editorials, PEN Canada, and others who have come out in favor of free speech, do not share your position on this. Whatever, if you dont like that characterization, lets forget about it.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-55730377781411203622008-05-02T14:41:00.000-04:002008-05-02T14:41:00.000-04:00you mean like when you stated that HRCs are an arb...<I>you mean like when you stated that HRCs are an arbitrative mechanism and pretended that I knew nothing about the law and then went on to provide you with specific sections of the BC code which show exactly the contrary?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting I should have known you knew anything about the law at the time there was no evidence at hand to indicate that you did? And are you further suggesting that because you subsequently went out and googled up something that that somehow changes the conditions under which I made my original assumption?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, to answer your question: no, it's nothing like that at all. The hostility I'm detecting here is this high dudgeon speechies get into when they discover that some people are pretty damn indifferent to their bombast about free expression when a) they never say anything useful at all and b) don't have the vaguest understanding of how censorship, journalistic malpractic and outright distortions in the media are far bigger problems than the slaps on the wrist they're likely to get from an HRC decision.<BR/><BR/><I>And how you exposed your petty hatred of anybody who doesnt share your far-left worldview?</I><BR/><BR/>Now it's FAR-LEFT, is it?<BR/><BR/>Where do you guys get all this? Do you watch too much <I>FoxNews</I> or something (O'Reilly calls everything far-left, the term is meaningless)? In any case, commentary that reveals an indifference to the fact that words have meaning doesn't do much to disabuse me of the notion that speechies are just really, really stupid.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-88278772845642416212008-05-02T13:21:00.000-04:002008-05-02T13:21:00.000-04:00The only thing any of this has revealed is an incr...<I>The only thing any of this has revealed is an incredible hostility certain people have when confronted with the reality that they really don't know anything and are more comfortable being exposed to information that panders to their irrational beliefs and petty hatreds, rather than exposing themselves to information that challenges them.</I><BR/><BR/>you mean like when you stated that HRCs are an arbitrative mechanism and pretended that I knew nothing about the law and then went on to provide you with specific sections of the BC code which show exactly the contrary? And how you suggests that the complainants are trying to get Macleans to voluntarily publish their rebuttal and I provided an argument as to why this is nonsense and you responded with the fact that I must be afflicted with ADD and a reading disorder? And how you exposed your petty hatred of anybody who doesnt share your far-left worldview? <BR/><BR/>Yeah I agree with that. I also agree that Macleans shouldnt get federal funding, see my post at 4:15PM.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-77168512047178457342008-05-02T12:56:00.000-04:002008-05-02T12:56:00.000-04:00"What really bugs me about these fwee speechers is...<I>"What really bugs me about these fwee speechers is that they're stupid and cant argue anything.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, <I>duh.</I>. I don't even think Steyn graduated high school. He'd be selling pencils from a cup if it hadn't been for all the wingnut welfare he's been hoovering up all these years.<BR/><BR/>The only thing any of this has revealed is an incredible <I>hostility</I> certain people have when confronted with the reality that they really don't know <I>anything</I> and are more comfortable being exposed to information that panders to their irrational beliefs and petty hatreds, rather than exposing themselves to information that challenges them.<BR/><BR/>What the speechies are arguing for is for the right to have their stupidity respected, even celebrated and the right to convince others that hate, bigotry, dishonesty and journalistic malpractice are simply forms of <I>political</I> expression that desperately need protection.<BR/><BR/>I think if <I>MacLean's</I> gave up the 3.5 million dollars a year it sucks out of the federal <I>Publications Assistance Program</I>, I'd personally stop caring as much as I do about its claim that it has a right to offend Canadians. Alternately, they could drop the Robber Bride and the Robber Baron's catamite already and let those two sink into a gin-soaked irrelevance they've more than earned the right to enjoy.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-29761057946841035502008-05-02T10:18:00.000-04:002008-05-02T10:18:00.000-04:00Ti-Guy, thanks again for exposing your bad faith.Y...Ti-Guy, thanks again for exposing your bad faith.<BR/><BR/>You got these complainants making a public settlement offer to the effect that "let us publish or we maintain our complaint" and they finsih off with "the BC Tribunal MAY order you to publish it anyways" - are you suggesitng they should have said "BC Tribunal WILL order you"? I dont think even these guys can or should suggest that they are a certain of what a tribunal would order.<BR/><BR/>You're still suggesting that they are trying to get Macleans to voluntarily publish their piece? I think its crystal clear that Macleans DOES NOT WANT TO PUBLSIH IT. So that should be the end of it, but no they're trying to impose it on Macleans.<BR/><BR/>If you can come up with an actual argument to show that they are merely seeking that Macleans publish voluntarily, lets hear it.<BR/><BR/>If all you have is accusations of ADD and bad reading skills, I guess unfortuantely we'll hear it too. But yeah, Im guessing your response will be something like "What really bugs me about these fwee speechers is that they're stupid and cant argue anything, because they're all neocon zionist bush-puppets"Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-69912790435005411402008-05-02T10:10:00.000-04:002008-05-02T10:10:00.000-04:00I stand by that position.Good for you.In fact I do...<I>I stand by that position.</I><BR/><BR/>Good for you.<BR/><BR/><I>In fact I dont see how you could suggest otherwise.</I><BR/><BR/>Look up the word "may."<BR/><BR/><I>Ok BCL I confused Faisal Joseph with ElMasry. Whatever.</I><BR/><BR/>Lord, these kids and their ADD...<BR/><BR/>I think some people should worry less about their "fwee speach!" and deal with their horrific reading comprehension skills and short attention spans.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-32712819825591090412008-05-02T09:48:00.000-04:002008-05-02T09:48:00.000-04:00Ok BCL I confused Faisal Joseph with ElMasry. Wha...Ok BCL I confused Faisal Joseph with ElMasry. Whatever.<BR/><BR/>My initial point was that these guys now seek to force Macleans to publish their rebuttal rather than have Macleans do it voluntarily. I stand by that position. In fact I dont see how you could suggest otherwise.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-21276745719150582782008-05-02T09:45:00.000-04:002008-05-02T09:45:00.000-04:00Right. Thats the lawyer, not E., and he is not sa...Right. Thats the lawyer, not E., and he is not saying that this is one of their demands but something the BCHRC itself might require.<BR/><BR/>Big talk. He thinks he's going to win.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-1151239754235486222008-05-02T09:40:00.000-04:002008-05-02T09:40:00.000-04:00BCL: also, from the NP report of the press confere...BCL: also, from the NP report of the press conference (if there is a G&M report I havent seen it)<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>He also hinted that the rebuttal has already been written, or at least sketched out, and that "one of the remedies in British Columbia may very well be that they could be ordered by the tribunal to put it in, subject to certain conditions and restrictions."</I><BR/><BR/>Link:<BR/><BR/>nationalpost.com/news/canada/<BR/>story.html?id=483738Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.com